Editor's Choice

Female physicians receive less pay than males for speaking, consulting and research work, study shows

Drug makers “regularly pay physicians for various types of work, such as speaking, consulting and clinical research,” The Wall Street Journalnotes. But a new study led by Cleveland researcher Susannah Rose “finds female physicians received noticeably less than their male counterparts for the same activities.”

From the story: For instance, men were paid $41 more, on average, than women for meals; they were also paid nearly $2,900, on average, more than women for speaking and about $2,400 more, on average, than women for consulting. Similarly, men were paid $15,000 more, on average, than women for industry-sponsored research, according to study in PLOS ONE. Overall, of the $17.9 million paid to nearly 221,000 physicians by drug makers in 2011, just 24.9% went to women. Female physicians, on average, received fewer total dollars — nearly $3,600 — per person than men. The study analyzed publicly reported financial relationships among 747,603 physicians and 432 pharmaceutical, device and biomaterials companies in 2011. The study authors say the findings “suggest that female physicians are not reaping the benefits of industry support at a time when government funding for research has been declining,” according to the story. “It’s troubling because this may place women at a distinct disadvantage,” Rose, the study’s lead author, tells The Journal. She is director of bioethics research and policy at the Cleveland Clinic and an assistant professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University. The Journal says Rose notes that previous studies “have found that women also receive less funding from the NIH than men.” In addition, the study found that disparities “were generally larger at institutions — such as academic medical centers — with better reputations, which are seen as more desirable by industry.” However, the authors “were not able to cite reasons for the disparities,” The Journal says. They speculate that “industry could be biased; women may not work in medical specialties were the most research is conducted; industry may believe audiences at educational events respond better to male speakers; or women may be less inclined to work with industry.”

Spotlight on police unions

CityLab.com uses Cleveland as the focal point to explore what it calls “the paranoia of police unions” in response to reform efforts.

The website notes that Steve Loomis, head of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, “has said that officers feel uneasy after recent decisions handed down concerning the department — decisions that have put police officers’ lives in danger.” Never mind, says CityLab.com, “that each of the judgments in question represents an effort to bring accountability to law enforcement in Cleveland.” Loomis’ logic, as articulated in recent comments to The Plain Dealer, amount to saying that efforts to reform police practices embolden criminals, “It’s a leap of logic that paints police as the victims of reform,” CityLab.com says. “Residents, too: Shape up police departments, and officers will become too fearful to enforce the law.” This is not just a Cleveland phenomenon. "The criminals are taking advantage of the situation in Baltimore since the unrest," said Gene Ryan, president of the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 3. Ryan—who denounced peaceful protesters as a “lynch mob”— made the statement shortly after Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby indicted six Baltimore Police Department officers in the death of Freddie Gray. "Criminals feel empowered now,” Ryan said in a statement. “There is no respect. Police are under siege in every quarter. They are more afraid of going to jail for doing their jobs properly than they are of getting shot on duty." But, as CityLab.com notes, “people are already getting killed.” Timothy Russell, Malissa Williams, and Tamir Rice in Cleveland are three of them. “And very few police officers are ever prosecuted in deaths like theirs,” the story concludes. “Paperwork seems like a small price to pay to bolster accountability in law enforcement. In fact, it seems like only the start.”

In an opinion piece for TheHill.com, Renacci and Rep. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin write that their legislation “uses the threat of a gas tax increase as an enforcement trigger to motivate Congress to finally do its job, which ultimately will provide at least 10 years of funding for the Highway Trust Fund.” The act “does not set a particular mechanism to reach 10 years of debt-free funding, but rather forces Congress to consider all viable options and take action,” they write. Renacci and Ribble say the legislation takes a two-pronged approach. “First, in order to provide an initial source of revenue to allow Congress enough time — roughly 1.7 years — to consider all potential funding options, it indexes the gasoline and diesel user fees to inflation going forward, ensuring the purchasing power of the Highway Trust Fund remains stable,” they write. “Second, recognizing cars have become more fuel-efficient and the gasoline and diesel user fees will not be a sustainable funding mechanism on their own, our bill creates a commission tasked with reviewing all funding options and finding agreement on a path forward.” Renacci and Ribble contend that the legislation “has helped propel the conversation forward and refocus attention on the need for Congress to get serious about finding a long-term solution to our failing infrastructure.” They conclude, “After 33 short-term fixes, stop-gap measures, and clumsy governing, it's finally time to face this national challenge.”